A634.4.4.RB_FogartyShawn

            I do not find that affirmative action is ethical; I agree in principle with the ideology of equality for everyone, however, not at the expense of others. Affirmative action essentially places us back at square one but on the other side of the fence. Racism, a form of discrimination based on an individual’s race, is appalling, flipping the coin to frame it as a positive from the minority’s perspective is no less malevolent. LaFollette (2007) presents affirmative action as “the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement.” The missing link here is at a cost of segregating other applicants, based on their race or sex. The Lancet identifies affirmative action to have been “first used during the 1960s to describe federal initiatives that allowed employers, school admission boards, and other gatekeepers to economic and academic opportunities to take into consideration a qualified applicant's race, national origin, sex, or disability”(Affirmative action, 1999). The principle of equality for everyone cannot be managed by regulations.

            The largest obstacle that has thwarted the underlying principle is a clear understanding and practical application of its policies. This is unlikely to occur through regulation as “affirmative action is a controversial and often poorly understood policy (Crosby, 2006, p. 01). A study from 2006 boasts why “affirmative action is needed” however that is can also have “unintended negative consequences” but further if implemented appropriately it can prove to be “most successful” (Crosby, 2006, p. 01).

            I agree in large along with other general oopponents of affirmative action who argue that “favoring one applicant over another on the basis of their race, national origin, or sex is antithetical and that the rights of the individual should not be sacrificed to address grievances of certain groups” (Affirmative action, 1999). Further, “Affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination in which less qualified individuals are given preference over better qualified individuals solely on the basis of their race or sex (Affirmative action, 1999).

            In a study from 1999, the AAMC reported that almost 40% of the decline in applicants from minorities was due to a drop in applications in four states where state affirmative action programs have been banned: California, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (Affirmative action, 1999). The social aspect is minorities seemingly did not apply if they did not have an edge on the competition. This is an example of an unintended consequence. Whether it be they felt their individual attributes and qualifications would not have been fairly weighted or that they weren’t going to be favored based on their race it places the system in disorder.

            Affirmative action has been a hot topic at the Supreme Court level lately.  The Supreme Court’s general approach to affirmative action in universities admissions decisions, “educational diversity is an interest sufficient to overcome the general ban on racial classifications by the government” (Liptak, 2013). The University of Texas at Austin has been under scrutiny for its seeming race bias on accepting of applicants. The pursuit of educational diversity, a five-justice majority said in the Grutter case, permits admissions personnel at public universities to do what the Constitution ordinarily forbids government officials to do — to sort people by race (Liptak, 2013). However, the good news from this case is that “Strict scrutiny,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “does not permit a court to accept a school’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without a court giving close analysis to the evidence of how the process works in practice” (Liptak, 2013).

            In contrast, equality is important. Ending discriminating practices both for and against applicants, including affirmative action, is the best solution for the future. We cannot right the wrongs of the past on someone else shoulders. Acknowledging the past, acceptance of the error in our ways and education to the masses is the appropriate corrective action.

References

Affirmative action. (1999). The Lancet, 353(9146), 1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/198971547?accountid=27203

Crosby, F. (2006). Understanding Affirmative Action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585-611. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190029

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Pub. (71-99)

Liptak, A. (2013, June 24). Affirmative Action Case Is Sent Back to Lower Court - NYTimes.com. Retrieved June 25, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/affirmative-action-decision.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A500.4.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            The art of choosing by Dr. Sheena Iyengar as broadcast by TED Global videos presents one interesting facet to America ideology about choice. Dr. Iyengar assumes that Americans believe the following when it comes to making choices. First, Americans are free to make their own choices. Second, the more options that area available will often lead to better choices. Lastly, individuals should never say no to choice (TED Global, 2010). Dr. Iyengar presents a humorous interaction about her travels to Japan and ordering green tea with the request to add sugar. The waiter humbly decline and the situation unfolds further. The ultimate misunderstanding was not superficial but rests nested much deeper against cultural fundamental ideas about choice.

            I would tend to agree with Dr. Iyengar theories regarding choice. I personally like to be in control of my own decisions. Having choices or options is generally preferred as I compare and evaluate them based on my personal preferences. Although, I’ll slightly contradict as having options is preferred, too many options and saturate the decision process and lead to a sub-optimal decision. Lastly, I don’t think I’d ever day no to choice, I may defer to another opinion, maybe even to make the decision but never to blind luck or fate.

            I believe Dr. Iyengar’s implication on leadership is that leaders must remain flexible and adopt choice as a positive element about their lives. Choice can be overwhelming but by hvng options to evaluate it will allow leaders to make the best decisions possible. Although, give the pink nail polish sometimes choices can be trivial; such as glamour versus eloquent (TED Global, 2010). I think her closing comments that being blind places a significant amount of perspective on choices as the visual sense is one of absolute. An individual uses their visual sense throughout the day innumerably. Without the visual sense one would utilize their mind more to determine the best choice from the available options.

 

TED Global (2010). Sheena Iyengar: The art of choosing | Video on TED.com [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing.html

A634.3.5.RB_FogartyShawn

            In the article, the harder they Fall, by Kramer’s (2003) sets a baseline on how leaders rise and fall. Similarly to a saying in aviation, what goes up must come down. This can be gracefully with retirement and passing the torch or as dramatic as the board room with Donald Trump yelling, “You’re fired!” The actions or inactions of leaders who lose sight of reality, thus breaking ethical code and boundaries, lands them in hot water. Kramer (2003) highlights that “it’s not only what new leaders do when they get to the top that gets them into trouble; it’s also what they don’t do” (Kramer, 2003).

            I think today’s society from politics to business is full of leaders that lose sight of reality. There are many things that blind them but sadly it’s the customer who usually suffers. Society at large, principally in the United States, has become so accustom to being waited on hand and foot. There are only a few hard workers left and the rest are banking on borrowed credit. The news is full of the latest scandal or hot topics that capture ratings and further perpetuates society into losing sight of reality.  

            This happens also within my organization. Those in charge of logistics and supply functions seem to always have the latest and greatest gadget or gizmo often without a need while the masses seek and sometimes “beg, borrow, and steal” resources. Lapse in judgment and unfruitful spending habits transpire similar to the article. Although, our perceived spending dilemmas are not as significant as a $2,200 dollar waste basket or a $15,000 umbrella holder (Kramer, 2003).

            The next element is the organizations leaders who are willing to break the rules, but chastise those beneath them for following their examples. I understand the mentality behind “If you aren’t willing to test the limits of what’s acceptable and what works… you’ll never make it to that next level of performance or attainment” (Kramer, 2003). I in part agree but there has to still be limits or a scope to maintain, complete chaos about the organization is not a good idea. Lastly, some leaders find themselves “distracted by all the temptations – and often abandon the practices that helped them capture the crown” (Kramer, 2003). They too easily forget what actions put them in power and start to slowly burn bridges. Eventually they are left on their own island with no way off.

            As far as dilemmas in my life; I have none. I love my profession and my family. Sometimes have to compromise one for the other but I find equilibrium eventually. I keep my liabilities within check and never extend myself beyond my own abilities. Knowing what you can’t do is equally important as knowing what you can do.

 Kramer, R. M. (2003). THE HARDER THEY FALL. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

A634.3.5.RB_FogartyShawn

            In the article, the harder they Fall, by Kramer’s (2003) sets a baseline on how leaders rise and fall. Similarly to a saying in aviation, what goes up must come down. This can be gracefully with retirement and passing the torch or as dramatic as the board room with Donald Trump yelling, “You’re fired!” The actions or inactions of leaders who lose sight of reality, thus breaking ethical code and boundaries, lands them in hot water. Kramer (2003) highlights that “it’s not only what new leaders do when they get to the top that gets them into trouble; it’s also what they don’t do” (Kramer, 2003).

            I think today’s society from politics to business is full of leaders that lose sight of reality. There are many things that blind them but sadly it’s the customer who usually suffers. Society at large, principally in the United States, has become so accustom to being waited on hand and foot. There are only a few hard workers left and the rest are banking on borrowed credit. The news is full of the latest scandal or hot topics that capture ratings and further perpetuates society into losing sight of reality.

            This happens also within my organization. Those in charge of logistics and supply functions seem to always have the latest and greatest gadget or gizmo often without a need while the masses seek and sometimes “beg, borrow, and steal” resources. Lapse in judgment and unfruitful spending habits transpire similar to the article. Although, our perceived spending dilemmas are not as significant as a $2,200 dollar waste basket or a $15,000 umbrella holder (Kramer, 2003).

            The next element is the organizations leaders who are willing to break the rules, but chastise those beneath them for following their examples. I understand the mentality behind “If you aren’t willing to test the limits of what’s acceptable and what works… you’ll never make it to that next level of performance or attainment” (Kramer, 2003). I in part agree but there has to still be limits or a scope to maintain, complete chaos about the organization is not a good idea. Lastly, some leaders find themselves “distracted by all the temptations – and often abandon the practices that helped them capture the crown” (Kramer, 2003). They too easily forget what actions put them in power and start to slowly burn bridges. Eventually they are left on their own island with no way off.

            As far as dilemmas in my life; I have none. I love my profession and my family. Sometimes have to compromise one for the other but I find equilibrium eventually. I keep my liabilities within check and never extend myself beyond my own abilities. Knowing what you can’t do is equally important as knowing what you can do.

 

Kramer, R. M. (2003). THE HARDER THEY FALL. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

A500.3.4.RB_FogartyShawn

          The hunt Library is a great resource for your research as it related to our studies. The library offers a whirlwind of services and help is only a mouse click or phone call away. The main capabilities start with the ability to conduct an EagleSearch, Book, Videos, Articles search or request research help. Once you’ve typed in your topic, for this instance I utilized “Leadership” I had over sever million “hits.” The pan view on the right combined with filter tools allow you to easier and efficiently weed out materials I was not interested in. Further, I could isolate search criteria or further refine my search if there were still too many to comb over. The nice aspect for majority of article is that they are immediately available in PDF viewer and further offer full APA style reference to allow for proper citing of material if later used.

            The library makes locating information simple and convenient for the online student. Students have the ability to easily find books via the ERAU Catalog along with articles from the databases or even find course reserves. Multimedia is available in the form of DVDs and Videos along with the Hunt Library Digital Collections. Articles from journals, magazines, and newspapers are easy to use as available online in Full-Text Resources. Lastly, the Hunt library often recommended Websites that maintain scholarly information. Overall, searching and filtering through material online is easy and efficient.

            The Hunt Library also offers several services aside from the aforementioned search features. Such services as a material Borrow / Renew (Circulation), Borrow From Other Libraries (Interlibrary Loan), Media Services, and services permitted for Faculty, Staff, Alumni and Guests. Further, the library Recommends New Materials and is able to provide material via a Web Document Delivery.

            The benefit of using the Hunt Library is that you can depend on the information maintains is scholarly origins. This is opposed to other mainstream search engines where you have to vet the sources. A common misconception for beginners is to use Wikipedia or Google and ignorantly trust the sources.

A634.2.4.RB_FogartyShawn

            LaFollette (2007) discusses In Chapter 2 of The practice of ethics two styles of reasons in relation to ethical decision making and choices. The first is consequentialism which focused on the consequences of our actions. The second style of reasoning is deontology which takes it a step or two further by defining our actions in relation to rules and principles. Overall the two styles of reasoning set the basis for ethical reasoning.

            I find consequentialism to be practical however insufficient by itself. The context of merely looking only at the consequences seemingly would be linked to only short lived success but ultimately failure. Consequences can not be the deciding factor alone, but should be utilized in a decision support system matrix as options are evaluated. This style of reasoning is important especially as it would force some to consider second and third order effects which could potentially have undesirable consequences otherwise ignored. Another credible facet to consequentialism is it takes into account three elements which allow the situation to be tailored. First, it considers which consequences are to be accounted. Second, how much weight is applied to each included consequences. Lastly, how it impacts the deliberation process (Lafollette, 2007).

            The other primary style of reasoning about ethical issues is deontology. Deontology, as Lafollette (2007) points out, has “two marks in its favor.” It incorporates the subjectivity about one’s moral beliefs, how they acquired them and how they apply them. Second, it’ principle rival, consequentialism is considers to be significantly flawed (Lafollette, 2007). The shaping aspect about deontology is that is defines one morality independently of its consequences.  

            If I had to choose between the two, I would choose both. I believe critical thinking can be utilized to encapsulate both consequences and morality about the situation to make a most informed decision. The hybrid state of reasoning would select a little from column A and a little from Column B. I think that ethical issues and decisions should have a moral compass to guide the decision maker but also include an understanding of the consequences to incorporate any subsequent effects from that decision.

 

 

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Pub.

A500.2.3.RB_FogartyShawn

           The standards most important to my life are nested with my values which originate from multiple sources. Collectively my standards and values guide my actions from day to day with mild interruptions due to complexity and chaos. I like to think I apply the appropriate standards after appropriately analyzing the situation at hand, applying enough critical thinking to determine the best possible outcome within the confines of overarching rules, laws, or limitations.

            My standards include overall to be reasonable, logical, and practical. These circles in theory come together like a vignette and the best place it to find myself is in the area where all three overlap. The expectation of being reasonable is closely tied to my values. I will apply at a minimal the golden rule, to treat others how I’d like to be treated, but further ensure the situation does not inflict decisions for selfish reasons. Next, the standard to be logical is simple; apply logic. This can range from simple common sense to complex, multistage assessments and critical thinking. Lastly, the standard of practicality is roughly on par with common sense but basically it ensures there is a sanity check about the situation.

            These standards outline with a broad brush of how I operate from day to day. They have been acquired over time, and are continually being amended with input from formal schools, training, mentors, personal interactions, and on-the-job experience. They’ve changed significantly over the past decade from two primary inputs. The first input is a broader depth of maturity which has evolved from both and increase in age and experience. The second input has been skill development from on the job experience and increased responsibility over my career. Overall, I think the most important consideration to one’s standards is that they are meant to guide you but hardly capable to be set as absolute limits.  

A500.1.5.RB_FogartyShawn

            Intellectual perseverance will be important as I progress in my studies because it further defines an individual’s self-worth about their commitments. My studies are important to me and as such call for a serious dedication about the material, subject matter, and my course work. As I commit to the Master of Science in Leadership program I’ve identified that I will be giving up weeknights and weekends of otherwise free time. This is a conscience decision I support as I’ve vested my future in my higher education. To have done so without an intellectual perseverance would have otherwise been unintelligent. I completely agree with how Critical Thinking Organization (n.d.) defines intellectual perseverance:

 “Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.”

The significance about this definition is the robust nature to which it identifies the barriers one might encounter along with the necessary nature to overcome them. Further, it exemplifies intellectual preference as an individual oath against complacency. The serious nature about the definition further exacerbates the necessary nature as to why it is important in my studies. I also believe that anything worth doing is worth doing well. I am not personally able to produce a half-witted product. If an assignment comes my way I consider it a direct reflection which is why I would devote the proper attention to detail and dedication to produce the best product I can. In relation to my studies that means I learn the most I can from the program.

            Intellectual perseverance is an absolute must, an enduring quality of good leaders. Leaders would not otherwise be considered good with an absence of these qualities and attributes. Further, a leader must be able to identify barriers and improvise, adapt, and overcome the hardships they face. Adversity is everywhere, good leaders must rely upon “intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations” (Valuable Intellectual Traits, n.d.). If leaders are not able to face adversity; conquering in spite of the obstacles in front of them they do their followers no good. Good leaders will also be faces with an opposition force that wants leader to capitulate to their ideas or beliefs. This does not mean leaders must rule with an iron hand but rather rely on a “firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others” (Valuable Intellectual Traits, n.d.). Lastly, good leaders must put in the long, arduous hours necessary to seek the trust in fact. They cannot accept the “cliff note” version but invest the time and energy that is required to “struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight” (Valuable Intellectual Traits, n.d.). Finally, good leaders must continually strive to be great leaders; great leaders aren’t without intellectual perseverance.

 

Valuable Intellectual Traits. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/valuable-intellectual-traits/528

A634.1.6.RB_FogartyShawn

            The apparent lack of ethics in today’s business management administrative personnel partially is nested with the lack of integrated education but is also an abstract product of the moral fabric of society. There is a convoluted sense about what is right and wrong but further zero initiative for individuals to seek out the “right” answer. Individuals tend to “go with the flow” rather than utilize critical thinking skills or abstract or theoretical analysis. Everyone wants the “fast-food” style answer. There is truly a need to reshape the point of view of each individual. 
            The article by Joel Podolny (2009), The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School, outline what I think is the best approach. A code of ethics coupled with credentials when if broken are revoked. Long lost is the day of the good ole handshake, a day when a “mans word” was all you needed. Today’s business personnel are out for the fast, cheap, careless way to make a dollar. The pride and honor about ones integrity can be easily bought. Podolny (2009) emphasizes that “many people believe that management education has contributed to the systematic failure of leadership that led to the current fiscal crisis.” I would tend to agree.
            Joel Podolny outlines that they “don’t teach you as business school.” The cookie cutter programs and cattle car mentality for fiscally motivated universities have watered down core business principles to an obscure context amid week four, somewhere. Ethics are the backbone, especially in business management. Almost all the problems from sexual harassment, to equal opportunity, resource or personnel management, and communication can be negatively affected by a lack of moral character and ethical decision making. Podolny (2009) points out “business schools can regain society’s trust by emphasizing values as much as they do analytics and by encouraging students to adopt a holistic approach to business problems.”
            I fully support the concept of treating business like that of a medical practice or lawyers professional credentialing. This idea would be perfect and place a much needed backbone back in the business industry. Further, it would restore trust that has been eroding since the early 1990’s. Universities also have a lot of work to do. They need to embody ethics in their programs and not just highlight the topic. Ethics needs to be rooted. A broader approach shifting gears from pure quantitative to a mixture of qualitative and quantitative analysis will also help. The driving factor for business it marketing their products, students, and the key indicator of annual salaries is a poor metric. The focus to market students, if utilizing the code of ethics and credentials, would then be on the most honest, trustworthy producing school. The shady, underhanded business tactics would be filtered and universities, holding individuals accountable is the best way to do it.

Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 62-67.